Freedom or Totalitarianism

Friday, August 31, 2012

You convince people they are more qualified to make their decisions than government. When you have an educated society and not just an educated class, but a society where most of the country is educated and has the tools to manage their own affairs then you won’t need a big government, or any government trying to manage the people’s affairs for them. Because the people will know how to do these things for themselves. Both from a personal and economic perspective. The biggest threat to big government and statism and what big government supporters should worry about the most is not individual freedom. Individual freedom and limited government are the alternatives to big government. The biggest threat to big government and statism is an educated society.

When people have the tools which is education to manage their own affairs, then they’ll know what to do and what not to do with their own lives. They’ll know not to attack innocent people, because they’ll know that is wrong. They’ll know where to work, because they’ll know what they’re qualified to do and what the pay and benefits comes from the jobs they are qualified for. They’ll know where to live and what is the best place for them, because they’ll know what they can afford and what would be the best community for them. They’ll know where to get their health insurance, what to eat and drink and how much they can handle of those things. How to plan their own retirements, where to send their kids to school. Whether they should smoke, or drink, including marijuana. And who they should sleep and live with and when if ever they should marry their romance partner.

Statists, especially nanny statists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right generally view people as stupid. And not able to manage their own affairs and see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Which is why they believe in statism whether its Marxism, or some type of religious theocracy. Which again is why education is the biggest threat to big government. And why statists can’t afford an educated society, because then they won’t have the support for their big government philosophy. So you educate the society and make quality education universal for everyone including low-income children and you’ll have a society that believe in liberty, because they’ll know how to manage their own affairs for themselves.Libertarianism.Org: Ron Paul 1990- How To Sell Liberty

What Representative Todd Akin, the GOP US Senate Nominee for Missouri represents, is exactly what the Republican Party spent four days trying to get away from. People who in the GOP who take Representative Akin seriously and actually agree with him and why the GOP has struggled with female voters. Going back to 1992, this idea that issues that directly effect women, like rape aren't the concern or business of Republicans. And that women should just get over things like this and concentrate on the economy, Foreign Policy and raising their husbands kids. Going into the Congressional Elections. Senate Republicans need a 3-4 seat pickup depending on who wins the White House, to win the majority in the Senate but thanks to the Tea Party, 3-4 might become 6-8. Because they have to pickup 3-4 Democratic seats and not lose any of their own. Thanks to the Tea Party and who they've nominated in Maine and Indiana, those two seats are now in play for Senate Democrats and Senate Democrats already had their eye on Arizona as well. Senate Democrats look like they have a lot of ground to defend but they also look like they have the people to defend the territory. And Senate Republicans are still short on some troops.

I predicted back in June that the party that wins the White House will also control the Senate in the next Congress. And I'm still sticking with that but Maine and Indiana changes that a little bit and with Senator Mccasskill facing Representative Akin in Missouri in the fall. The President might not have to get reelected for Senate Democrats to keep control but I wouldn't bet any a dime on that.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party. The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today. Because there isn't a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren't purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right, Neoconservatives and even Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left, Far-Left really. A combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don't seem to believe in it. The whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I'm not a Libertarian even though I'm completely against big government myself. But whether you're a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don't have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party. The believe in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don't just speak about aspects of it that they like as they're trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don't like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

Senator Rand Paul and his Classical Conservatism or Libertarianism is the future of the Republican Party. If they are to remain a major Political Party, which is still a big if right now, as America has moved left on Social Issues and the GOP has moved right across the board. Especially with Neoconservatives now running the GOP, if the GOP were to combine its Fiscal Conservatism. Of decentralizing the Federal Government, to go along with a party that believes in Civil Liberties and Individual Freedom and not just Economic Freedom but Social Freedom as well. Then Classical Conservatives and Libertarians will come back to the GOP and the Rick Santorum Neoconservatives of the World. The Big Government Republicans will have less influence, Independents would take another look at the GOP, that this is a party thats going. To keep my taxes down, protect my Civil Liberties and stay out of my bedroom. Then the GOP will be able to compete with the Democratic Party thats in position to do very well in the next ten years. Especially as we become more Liberal-Libertarian as a country on Social Issues and we become more diverse as a country both racially and ethnically.

This is the only way the Republican Party can avoid becoming a Third Party, as long as they are a Economically Conservative. But a Socially Authoritarian party that tries to tell people who they can sleep with, when they can sleep with that person, who they can marry what they can watch on TV. What they can do in the privacy of their own homes, how they can live their own lives etc, a party that stays out of your wallet, meaning it doesn't take any more money from you. But shares your home with you and tells you what you can do in it, they are going to continue to lose young people and minorities to the Democratic Party, as their current coalition of voters dies off. Which is not a winning strategy.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

A lot of times what you hear from Republicans today is that the Federal Government is too big and that its out of control and is taking our freedom away. And then on the other hand, things like pornography, homosexuality, Same Sex Marriage, premarital sex, out of wedlock births and Hollywood are. Also destroying America and that these things need to be limited if not outlawed and we need new limits on how Americans can live their lives, if that message sounds contradictory to you. Government is too big here which is bad but its too small here, which is also bad. If that sounds contradictory to you, you would be correct but why is that so, why do Republicans today preach against Big Government. While at the same time they are preaching against it, because when they are speaking against Big Government, they are talking about it as it relates to the economy. And Religious Freedom, well Christian Freedom, which at least for the Leadership of the GOP, that now includes Catholics. And when they are preaching in favor of Big Government, they are speaking about Social Issues, what they apparently don't understand and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. That Big Government is Big Government whether it relates to Economic Policy or Social Issues.

There are still some Republicans in Congress and out of Congress that are against Big Government period. Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan still has influence on some Republicans today but they are either getting kicked out of the party or facing Primary Challenges. Like Senator Olympia Snowe in Maine or they are getting kicked out of the party, like Gary Johnson. Whose now the Libertarian Nominee for President or they represent States or Districts, that are with them on the issues. Which makes them popular in the GOP there, the Republicans there, are actually Conservative, like Massachusetts with Senator Scott Brown who I predict will be reelected in November. Or are Libertarian in the District that Representative Ron Paul represents in Texas. Instead of celebrating these Republicans for being popular with their party there, Neoconservatives instead try to kick them out of office and put one of their members in there.

Its not Conservatism thats destroying the GOP but Neoconservatism, people who are big believers in Economic Freedom. But want to put new limits on our Social Freedom and control how Americans can live their own lives, because as the GOP has moved even further right across the board in America. The rest of the country has moved left on Social Issues, so when a Neoconservative beats a Conservative, the incumbent in a primary. They put in danger that office for the Republican Party that will be facing a Democrat whose Center Left and this is costing the GOP elections.

Hearns-Hagler for the World Middleweight Championship in 1985, might be the best great short fight of all-time. But the reason it was a great short fight is because Tommy Hearns made two tactical mistakes. One perhaps not his fault which was to break his hand hitting the top of Marvin Hagler's rock-solid head. Which obviously affected Hearns performance the rest of the fight. But the other mistake which was something he could have avoided was to get into a slugfest with Hagler. A man who was a devastating body puncher who would just wear you out. Not that different from a Joe Frazier, but who avoided punches very well and could take a lot of great shots. Not that he had to very often. Hearns, being 6'1 and very quick with a great jab, should've worked the outside and pounded Hagler when he had him hurt. But you don't go toe-to-toe with a bulldog, when all you need is a leash to keep him under control. But Hearns landed a lot of great shots, but took too much punishment and breaking his hand essentially ended the fight for him.

I'm for anything that improves Education in America, especially Public Education which is where most of our students will most likely. Be going to school today and into the future, thats just the case Public Schools are here to stay as much as Libertarians may want to eliminate them. So given that reality, with the hundred or so Americans that go to Public Schools in America. We need to make those Public Schools work as well as possible, which they aren't today not even close. And thats where Charter Schools come in that are Public Schools but are run independently. Charter Schools are able to hold their students accountable, if you don't succeed and you don't learn there. You don't move on and you'll not be in that school in the future, you'll probably end up back in a regular Public School or a Special Needs School. Which gives the educators, students and parents extra motivation for these students to succeed, there's also additional motivation for the educators to do a good job as well. If their students aren't succeeding, they'll be out of a job or have to go through retraining and they are also paid for their quality of service, not time of service. Unlike regular Public Schools where the opposite is true.

Charter Schools aren't the answer to Education Reform in America but they are certainly an answer to what we should be doing. And how Charter Schools are run should be the way we run our other Public Schools, where the educators, students, as well as parents are held accountable for what they do. Where people are not advance just because of how long they've been doing what they are doing and where we don't give educators pay raises based on how long they've been doing something. But instead we pay people based on how well they do their jobs.

Monday, August 27, 2012

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. But instead said say, “that capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Left Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.

I find it ironic that the Republican Party a Party that preaches the importance of what they see as Family Values and where several of its most outspoken members. Including people who even ran for President this time around and where there is a lot of Neoconservative Republican support. For a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw pornography in America, is headed to Tampa, Florida, Strip Club Capital of the United States. Of course maybe I shouldn't be surprise, considering that this is the same GOP thats constantly complaining about Big Government and that the Federal Government is too big. And a threat to our freedom and yet at least several of their outspoken members wants to empower the Federal Government to be able to control what Americans can do in their free time, what they. Can do on their own Private Property, in the privacy of their own homes and what they can do with their own money. The Federal Government in a lot of cases is too small for today's Neoconservative GOP, that is no longer the Goldwater/Reagan Republican Party that Barry and Ronny worked hard to put together. Thanks to Barry and Ronny, Goldwater and Reagan and this didn't happen intentionally, the Religious Right is now a big force in today's GOP.

What's next in 2016 the Republican Party will be headed to San Francisco or Seattle, the capitals of homosexuality and hippyism. I have a hard time believing that the GOP is in Tampa this year because they are after the porn vote if there's even such a thing. Or even the Libertarian vote, so why are they in Tampa, perhaps its because they are tired of seeing people that look just like them. Southern Rural Anglo Saxon Protestant men and want a breath of fresh air, which is what they'll get in Tampa.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard. Because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft. Which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians including Presidents and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview. But he could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

People like columnists and other writers like authors. People who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things. Professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known. So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the Progressive in doing this interview. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate. Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, but questioning her philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat. And George beat him twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together.

Johnny Carson, was accustomed to entertaining people. Doing skit comedy, standup comedy and interviewing other entertainers. And I’m not saying that Johnny Carson was an ignorant or uneducated man, the opposite was true and he was interested in politics and current affairs. And made fun of people in this business as part of his act. But he was accustomed to interviewing entertainers, not intellectuals like Ayn Rand. Johnny, was accustomed to interviewing people who entertained others for a living, rather than interviewing people who get paid to educate people about philosophy and history.

So when Johnny interviewed Ayn Rand in 1967 on his show, it was a step up for him and probably something he had to do a serious amount of prep work to prepare for. Like reading Ayn Rand’s books and reading articles about her, checking out any news footage about her as well. Ayn Rand, wasn’t someone who was very commonly known in Hollywood to put it mildly. The intellectuals they were familiar with, already held office and were politicians. Rather than people on the outside looking in, perhaps trying to build a counter-movement, which is what Ayn Rand was doing to a certain extent.

Ayn Rand’s, philosophy of objectivism that Libertarians today use as an inspiration for their movement, was about individual freedom. That people should look after themselves first and only after individuals are strong, than we can help others that are weak. Which I’m sure sounds selfish to Progressives who have a collectivist look at politics and life. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy in the 1960s, even in the late 60s like in 1967 when this interview was done, was not considered popular. Progressivism, especially when it came to the economy, was still the dominant political philosophy in the United States at this point.

And what Ayn Rand was preaching was the opposite of collectivism. That and I’m guessing most of the people in Johnny Carson’s audience were more Progressive than Libertarian. And that Ayn, was in a small minority compared with the rest of this crowd. So she was speaking to an unfriendly audience politically. Ayn, wasn’t the first or last politician, or philosopher that Johnny Carson interviewed. He interviewed Ron Reagan, Dick Nixon I believe, Gerry Ford, I believe Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and many others. But none of them were like Ayn Rand. Someone not only willing to believe in a philosophy, that wasn’t politically popular yet, but perhaps not even commonly known. And I give Johnny credit for that.

This a fight that Mike Moorer would like to have back. This fight reminds me a little of George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1974. Where Muhammad, waited for Big George, to punch himself out while landing enough punches in the fight to stay ahead. But essentially let Foreman land his punches thinking he wasn't built to last and would punch himself out. And that is when Ali went to work on him and knocked him down for the ten count. This was a little different where Big George, lost almost all the rounds if not all of them and did enough to buy himself time to capitalize on a mistake from Moorer, which is where he hit him with a 1-2 and knocked him out.

Big George, is 45 at this point and in his eighth of his famous comeback looking to win back the world championship. Weighing in at 255-260 pounds and slow, but still having devastating power and the ability to take great punches. Mike Mooere, 26 at this point and should have been in this prime and was prepared at least physically to hold on the title for a long time. He beat Evander Holyfield for the championship in 1993. He was 6'2, 215-220 pounds, real quick and real powerful. But perhaps a bit overconfident lacking the work-ethic needed to stay as a world champion. Not that different from Riddick Bowe, or Buster Douglas.

So going into this fight this almost looked like a mismatch. People thinking that Moorer, would pound Foreman the whole fight and be able to avoid Foreman's big jab and win most if not all the rounds. Either wear Foreman out, or win with a landslide decision. But the cliche always has a punchers chance, was never more correct than in this fight. George Foreman, in every fight he ever fought was always 1-2 punches away from winning. Because he could knock anyone out in 1-2 punches. Or nail you so hard with one punch and then pound you with several big blows after that would take you out. Big George, caught Moorer with one of his huge jabs and then decked him with a punch that Moorer didn't see. And that is how he won the World Heavyweight Championship. Where he trailed the whole fight.

Other the maybe access to abortion and that President Obama has now decided that he's fine with Same Sex Marriage and that it won't hurt him politically. What's the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on Social Issues, there are plenty of differences between the two of them and the Far Right on Social Issues. That Mitt Romney wants to keep quiet, good luck Mitt but these are two basically Moderate-Liberal guys on Social Issues, who both have Statist views when it comes. To the War on Drugs, War on Terror and perhaps gambling and prostitution and both believe, that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against based on their sexuality, except for marriage. Neither candidate really pushes Social Issues that much, President Obama is worried about offending Independents and Mitt is worried about offending the Far Right. Because he simply disagrees with them on most of these issues and he needs their support to get elected. Neither one of them are huge believers in Freedom of Choice, they both believe there's a role for Big Government to protect people, even at times from themselves. So if Social Issues are a big concern with you for this election, then you probably aren't going to be very happy with either Mitt or Barack.

As I've blogged before if the Presidential Election was purely about ideology and who I believe would be the best President. I would vote for Gary Johnson even though I'm a Democrat and the Gary Johnson is with the Libertarian Party but since Gary doesn't have an ice balls chance in hell of being elected President anytime soon. And this election is really about Mitt and Barack, I'm picking the best of this choice, Mitt Romney and a Tea Party Congress would be a disaster for the country. Even though he's not with them on most Social Issues, he wouldn't be strong enough to take them on. So this election is about the economy and keeping Neoconservatives from running Social Policy in the United States, which is why I'm voting for the President.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Tobacco is the perfect example of why regulation beats prohibition, as bad as tobacco is with all of the diseases its linked to. We'll never be able to eliminate tobacco from America, this is a realization that we've made as a country, that we are not going to try to protect Americans from themselves. When it comes to tobacco and alcohol and its time we made the same decision with marijuana as well but the debate when it comes to tobacco is a little different. Because when a non smoker such as myself or someone else is in the presence of any other non smoker. The tobacco of the smoker directly affects the health of the non smoker, 2nd hand smoking is actually worse for you then 1st hand smoking. Which is why people are prohibited from smoking tobacco in a lot of public places. Like hospitals and schools to use as examples. If you are in the hospital for Lung Cancer, a horrible disease, the last thing you need to do is breathing someone else's tobacco, breathing is already hard enough. So we've decided as a country that people have the Freedom of Choice in whether to smoke tobacco or not but they don't have the Freedom of Choice to decide whether others should be forced to smoke as well.

As a Liberal I'm a big believer in Freedom of Choice but again a long as people aren't hurting innocent people with the choices that they make. We aren't saying as a country generally that Americans can't smoke or can't smoke in bars and that sorta thing but what we are saying is that smokers can't force others to breathe their smoke. Which is why we have smoking sections in bars and non smoking sections. Smoking in America is essentially the freedom to hurt yourself but not the freedom to hurt others with your smoking.

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. Didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. Reminds me a little to George Wepner. If he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. So this was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out.

For today's Republican Party to remain relevant in he future as a major Political Party. Unless they are able to deny enough people who wouldn't normally vote for them because of where they are politically today, the ability to vote with Voter ID/Prevention. They are going to have to change course on where they are politically on Social Issues, otherwise they'll lose most of the young voters in the future as well all of of the Minority Groups. And be stuck with rural Anglo Saxon Protestant Voters and most of these people will be older as well as men. And this population is not growing but shrinking. While the Democratic Party will be left with the rest of the country, unless and Independence Party thats made up Fiscal Conservatives and socially moderate to tolerant voters. Which is where the GOP use to be and a party like this emerges with what use to be called Northeastern Republicans, people who are Fiscally Conservative but also Socially Conservative but in the classical sense, people who don't like Big Government in the wallets or bedrooms, people like Gerry Ford, former President of the United States.

I predict that within ten years that today's GOP will be gone, the Neoconservatives will of either of died off. The GOP will moderate or a new Republican Party will emerge, replacing today's GOP, just with a different name like an Independence Party, made up of the people I described. The Ross Perot's of the World that don't feel comfortable in today's Neoconservative GOP and these people will of left the GOP to become part of this Independence Party and perhaps the Libertarian Party will merge. With this party as well, today's GOP is simply not built to last, because the more they've moved right, the rest of the country has moved left. Creating huge opportunities for Democrats if they play it right and the Progressives don't take over. Because Liberal Democracy doesn't work well in a One Party State and we are going to need a Conservative Alternative to the Democrats. Whether the GOP moderates on Social Issues or a new Fiscally Conservative and Socially Conservative but in the classical sense party emerges.

Homosexuals just because they tend to be Liberal on Social Issues and feel unwelcome by Neoconservatives in the GOP. Aren't natural Democrats, there are plenty of them like the Log Cabin Republicans who feel more comfortable with Republican Economic Policy and who aren't Big Government Progressives. So these voters don't really have a home right now, which opens the door for a new Conservative Party to emerge.

Morton Downey Jr. who died from overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs. Here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well that is Washington speak for “drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization."

You want to know why marijuana is illegal in America? (Well I’ll tell you anyway) It is because they do not have the back pockets of enough Representatives and Senators in Congress. They haven’t bought off enough members of Congress to get their drug legalize. Besides alcohol and tobacco, soft drinks and junk food have already beat marijuana to the punch as far as getting their products legal and keeping them legal with very few regulations. While keeping marijuana illegal. What Representative Paul is saying is that legal drugs are the main problem in America when it comes to drugs. And locking people up for what they do to themselves is simply not working.

I'm not for legalizing all current illegal narcotics in America. I stop at legalization and regulation of marijuana, but then I would decriminalize the others simply because locking people up and sending them to prison for what they do to themselves. Which is has simply not worked as we now have over forty-years of evidence and experience to know. So I'm closer to Representative Ron Paul here than I'm with Mort Downey, who died for over consumption of a legal narcotic and that being tobacco. You get people to not make bad decisions with their own lives by showing them and convincing them why that would be wrong. Not by punishing people for what they do to themselves.Andy Warhol: Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Ron Paul on Morton Downey Jr. in 1988

Even though the United States boasts about being a Liberal Democracy and to a large extent it is and as a Liberal Democrat I'm proud of that. We have about 2M people who don't live in liberty, who are incarcerated and a lot of people are in prison or under some type of Public Supervision. Because they deserve to be but a lot of those same people who are incarcerated are partly as a result of society. Came from bad homes, weren't raised correctly, stuck going to bad schools and as a result of these things. End up dropping out of school and falling into wrong crowds, the Cult Leader Charlie Manson comes to mind and there are criminals who are. Raised well, come from good homes, even go to college or finish college but end up becoming Serial Murderers. Ted Bundy comes to mind but the real problems with our Criminal Justice System, as well as all of our inmates that are ignorant. And uneducated and even remain thatway while in prison, are in prison partially as a result of what I call the Protective Class. A group of people that are politically somewhat diverse, both left and right, who feel the need to protect people from themselves, even if that means sending them to prison where they'll end up being in danger.

A large percentage of our inmates or people who were once in prison and I don't know the official figure, are in prison for what they did to themselves. Hundreds of thousands of inmates are in prison as a result of the War on Drugs and I bet you most of those people aren't Narcotics Dealers but Narcotics Addicts who are in prison. Partially for stealing to feed their addiction and also for either possessing or using narcotics and end up leaving prison addicted to drugs. We also have people in prison for gambling their own money. For prostitution or running a Prostitution Operation, we have a lot of people who are in prison for what they did to themselves, rather then what they did to others. And as a result get sent to prison and are now in danger, where all they learn is how to survive if they are successful or how to become criminals, something they didn't know how to. Before they entered the Criminal Justice System.

To cut down on our prison population so we can truly be a Liberal Democracy and have an effective CJS. Thats also affordable, we have to do several things, as they relate to education, including education Low Skilled workers with kids, so they can get good jobs and raise their kids better. As well as better education for their kids, as well as preparing our inmates for life on the outside, so they don't com back to prison. But the easiest step would be to stop arresting people for what they do to themselves.

Monday, August 20, 2012

If you take polls of Americans on where they stand on Economic or Social Policy, you'll find that they tend to not like government being involved in their lives. As far what they can do economically or how they can live their own lives. They tend to not like government interference but want government to protect us from the harm of others. That its government's job to protect us from criminals essentially but not interfere with how we live our own lives. 40% of the country are Independents, they tend to like Republicans more on Economic Policy but like Democrats more on Social Policy and lately on Foreign Policy as well. They tend to believe in things like government should try to help people who are down but not try to control us or protect us from ourselves. They don't like Culture Warriors on the right but they also don't like people who I would call Economic Warriors on the left. Progressives who believe there's a bigger role for the Federal Government in the economy, taxing, spending and regulating more. This is something that I believe both Barry Goldwater who had the famous line, of get Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Something that Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton believed in as well but that government needs to be there to protect us from criminals and help people who are down get themselves back up.

This should play very well with Libertarians whether they are Republican, Democratic or in the Libertarian Party. That there's an audience out there that believes in Individual Freedom, thats more Centrist then Libertarians but still believe in these concepts. Of Individual Freedom and Responsibility, hard work, that you should be rewarded for what you produce and no more. That we should be held accountable for our actions and be able to live our own lives, without government interfering to protect us from ourselves. But the thing is even the Independents who are familiar with Libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Sees Libertarians as people who want to end the Safety Net and shrink the Federal Government down to just a few departments. And Independents don't tend to be that far to the right on Fiscal Policy but do believe in things like Fiscal Responsibility and low taxes but not ending taxes all together.

This is one reason why I'm such a fan of Gary Johnson because even though he's the Libertarian Presidential Nominee. He gives the LP a new voice and is telling Americans yes I'm with the LP but I'm not crazy, I believe in things like Individual Freedom and Responsibility. As well as low taxes but I'm not running to eliminate taxes all together, just to lower them and make the Tax Code understandable. And I don't want to eliminate the Safety Net, just to make it more efficient and have it perform better services. A message like this could appeal to Independents.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors, first, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if its abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you. Don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save. People who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others.

The Ron Paul of 1988 is the Ron Paul of 2012 when it comes to his principles. Whether you agree with Representative Paul or not and I tend to agree with him when it comes to issues with the national debt, budget deficit and social issues, at least you know where he is on the issues. The closest thing that the so-called Left from Center-Left where I am, to Far-Left where Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats in America would be, is Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. The only Independent member of Congress. And the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But certainly not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress. Especially in the House if you look at how some self-described so-called Progressive Democrats talk and vote.

Someone like a Ron Paul a hard-core classical Libertarian, who is actually fairly Far-Right on economic policy and libertarian on social issues, but not completely anti-government there at least when it comes to people hurting innocent people, could never get elected President of the United States. At least not in the near future. Because even though Americans now tend to agree with Paul on social issues, they like Social Security, Medicare, a public safety net for people who truly need it. But that is what makes Paul so principled, because I believe he knows these things, but he doesn't see politics as a popularity contest. And believes in his own views so much that he's willing to speak out in favor of what he's in favor of and what he's against. Even if no one else agrees with him.

There's a lot to respect about people who are willing to continue to fight losing battles. Equal rights for all Americans was certainly not popular in the 1940s and 1950s. And yet that is where you see the American civil rights movement get started and about twenty-years later we get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a few years after that the 1968 Fair Housing Law. Where those laws don't pass without a lot of support from Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate. Just because something, or someone might seem unpopular at the time, doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Which is what I believe Ron Paul supporters and other hard-right Libertarians should be thinking as they move forward.The Film Archives: Ron Paul on The Principles of The Libertarian Party

If you want to be a strong Leader, you have a vision of where you want to take the country and have a feel where you want to take the country and believe you are right. And can explain and back up why you believe you’re right. Then you should tell everyone else that as well. Especially people who are considering voting for you. Any politician can say “I’ll tell you my plans once I’m elected”. But voters deserve to know why they should vote for you instead. Blind-voting is not healthy for democracy. We should be educated about the people we consider for high office.

Voters want to know why they are voting for someone. What they believe in, what they are for. Because they don’t have to vote for you, they can vote for your opponent instead. This has been my major disappointment with President Obama. Who so far in a lot of areas has taken the approach of “let others work it out and I’ll come in and save the day when they fail”. If candidates believe so strongly in what they are proposing, they should have the, well guts to keep this clean and be able to explain why they are proposing what they are proposing.

Instead of telling voters, that is if they are on truth serum, “ask me what I’m in favor of once I’m elected. And if you are in favor of it, I’ll tell you”. The differences between governing and campaigning, is once you’re actually in office, you’re held accountable for the decisions you make. Whereas when you’re campaigning, you can theoretically say anything and promise just about anything. Knowing you don’t have to live up to anything you said and promise. And will probably be able to explain why you’re changing course once you’re in office.

A politician can say, “the situation has changed and we must change course to respond to the new, circumstances effectively”. Or in Rick Perry’s case, “I was drunk when I originally took those positions and now that I’m somewhat sober, I know I was wrong and feel the need to change those positions”. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, “I was off my medication when I took those positions”. Well actually Michelle is still off her medication, but hopefully she’ll be back on it when this Congress is over and head back home to the institution.

But what strong leaders do, especially executives, whether you agree with what they did or not, is lay out where they want to take the country. And once they are in office, stick with that. Put their agenda through or most of it. Whether you like President George W. Bush or not and I voted against him twice and still celebrate both of those votes annually. And if anything I’ve become more religious since he’s left the White House. Because I thank God he’s no longer President everyday. But at least you knew what he believed in. He was just wrong most of the time and didn’t understand that.

With Mitt Romney depending on which Mitt is speaking, moderate Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, Religious-Conservative Mitt or establishment Mitt, it is “ask me when I’m in office and then maybe I’ll tell you if I believe I need your support in the next election”. So what the media does instead to try to find out his positions is talk to people he’s talked to and analyze his policies that he puts up on his campaign site. And analyze them for themselves, because he can’t or won’t explain what his own policies would do. And America deserves better leadership than that.

Friday, August 17, 2012

To put it simply and bluntly as well as truthfully, neither Mitt Romney or President Obama has a serious Debt and Deficit Reduction plan. That they would try to push through in the next Congress, Governor Romney talks about the need for Deficit Reduction and the need for Budget Cuts. But doesn't really offer any, mild cuts in Domestic Spending while increasing the Defense Budget. And cutting taxes across the board, while raising taxes on the Middle Class, the Tax Cuts that were in the 2009 Recovery Act. President Obama talks about the need for Deficit Reduction and I guess what he would call a Budget Summit and bringing all the key Leaders from Congress and perhaps the Private Sector. To talk about how we should go about Deficit Reduction and he calls for a balance approach, that would include Budget Cuts, where the whole Federal Budget would be on the table. Including entitlements and in defense, like with the drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq but his plan. Except as it relates to taxes, where he would let the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expire and raise new taxes on the wealthy. The Obama Plan is mostly goals rather then policies to achieve those goals.

To actually solve the problems of the debt and deficit, takes an actual serious plan just because of how large the problem is. This is not 1990 or 1993, when the deficit was a couple hundred billion dollars, the deficit is now ten times that, representing over 12% of the GDP. The debt is now approaching 16T$ about four times as much as it was twenty years ago. And now as large as the total economy as well, so raising taxes here or making Budget Cuts here but not to the point. Where it doesn't offend anyone who might contribute to your next campaign, will not solve the problem, the next Deficit Reduction Package and thats exactly what it will have to be. Where the whole Federal Budget will be on the table, will have to include new revenue, that doesn't have to be Tax Hikes but additional revenue to pay down the deficit. And doing it in a way that doesn't hurt the economy, Budget Cuts cutting things we don't need or can't afford. And making thing we do need work better and more Cost Effective.

Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama may understand this, which is one reason why I believe President Obama appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission back in 2010. Because he wanted to see a serious plan to address this problem, even though he didn't endorse the plan from his own Commission. But neither one of them has a plan to solve the problem, because they are both worried about offending people that it would affect.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

I use to believe that if the 2012 Presidential Election was about a referendum, meaning that if this Election. Was about whether President Obama has been a good President or not, no matter who the opponent was, that the President would automatically lose, because of where the economy is. The President has had four years to fix it and so fourth. And that if this Election was about a choice, between the President and his opponent, that the President would have a much better chance of winning. Because Americans aren't crazy about any of the Republican Presidential Candidates, Mitt Romney has a very low Approval Rating and so fourth and that Americans would essentially be stuck with a choice they don't want. And it could be a choice between the devil you know, meaning Barack Obama and the devil you don't know, meaning Mitt Romney. And the devil you know tends to win elections like that, 2004 was an excellent example of that, where voters didn't really like either John Kerry or George Bush. But now I'm not so sure of that especially with the Romney/Ryan Campaign pushing Medicare Reform as much as they have. An issue that Republicans never beat Democrats on.

Democrats want to debate Medicare especially with Republicans whenever possible, this is an issue they've owned. Really since 1965, its probably the most popular thing that the Federal Government does and is something that Democrats and a few Liberal Republicans voted for and created back in 1964-65. The Romney/Ryan Plan that would force seniors out of Medicare and into the Health Insurance Industry with a voucher, is not a popular idea even within the GOP as a whole. There are plenty of Senior Republicans in Florida and other places and the more Mitt and Paul talk about Medicare, the less time they are talking about the bad economy. The main issue that Republicans want to make this Presidential Referendum about. Plus the fact that their Presidential Nominee has an Approval Rating of around 41%, lower then President Obama's. Republicans have made this Presidential Election a Referendum but they haven't figured out how to win it.

Mitt Romney could lose this Presidential Referendum that Republicans have been successful in creating all by himself. With all of his gaffes and with Congressional Republicans especially in the House, already running away from the Romney/Ryan Plan, the plan that every single Democrat. Incumbent or candidate will use against their opponents in the fall, Mitt Romney still has to make the sell to win this Presidential Referendum.

Follow Me On Facebook

Ederik Schneider Online

FRS FreeState Now on Google+

About Me

I'm a full-time blogger about everything that I'm interested in. Mainly about current affairs, news, politics and history. But I think like most people I'm interested in a lot of different things. I kind of like to know what is going on around and everything that is important and interesting. Instead of spending my a lot of my free time trying to find out everything that is going on in the world of sports. Or who is the latest hot pop culture celebrity and why that person is in jail, or who they're current seeing and so-forth.

I like to know what is going on in sports. What are the good movies that are coming out and if people I like and respect will be in them. But I also want to know about what is going on in government and politics. Since we all have to pay for that whether we like it, or not. And it affects all of us whether we like that, or not. I want to know about everything that is important and interesting. Especially if it is interesting and one of the reasons I love being a blogger is that I get officially weigh in on things that I'm interested in and knowledgeable about.

I don't consider myself to be an expert on anything. But I'm knowledgable about everything that I comment on and blog about. Comes with being interested in a whole wide-range of subjects. And watching a lot of news sports and otherwise, as well as reading about those things. And watching a lot of documentaries. And another thing about being a blogger is that you hear how knowledgeable you're public thinks you are. Which I welcome, just as long as the public keeps their comments professional, respectful and on subject.